DOCSLIB.ORG

The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions Gregory F. Rose Mark Lloyd The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions Gregory F. Rose Mark Lloyd May, 2006 The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions Gregory F. Rose and Mark Lloyd Executive Summary The Federal Communications Commission’s auctioning of spectrum licenses is a failure. The auctions have been subject to collusion and manipulation by big business, and as a result have failed to meet legislative guidelines. Until the FCC can demonstrate that it can conduct auctions in the public interest, Congress should halt the ongoing plans to auction licenses to the public spectrum. In 1993 Congress gave the Commission authority to use competitive bidding to choose from among two or more mutually exclusive applications for an initial license. Prior to this the Commission mainly relied upon comparative hearings and lotteries to select a licensee from a pool of mutually exclusive applicants for a license. In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress extended and expanded the FCC’s auction authority. Congress set multiple goals for spectrum auctions, as the Congressional Budget Office pointed out: In designing auctions for spectrum licenses, the FCC is required by law to meet multiple goals and not focus simply on maximizing receipts. Those goals include ensuring efficient use of the spectrum, promoting economic opportunity and competition, avoiding excessive concentration of licenses, preventing the unjust enrichment of any party, and fostering the rapid deployment of new services, as well as recovering for the public a portion of the value of the spectrum.1 According to a rigorous economic analysis of the last ten years of FCC auctions by Dr. Gregory Rose, an expert in game theory, the FCC has failed to meet many of the congressional goals. Efficiency and Maximizing Receipts Despite legislative direction not to focus on maximizing receipts, proponents of FCC spectrum auctions suggest the competitive bidding structure is justified because it is both economically efficient and revenue maximizing. Detailed analysis of the 58 auctions thus far completed shows that the claim regarding maximizing receipts is false and the claim of efficiency is at best an illusion. The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine the FCC’s commercial spectrum licensing process.2 In addressing this requirement GAO conducted a literature review, organized limited “stakeholder” panels, and generally glossed over areas of disagreement.3 The GAO relies on and repeats the FCC assertion that the auction of licenses for spectrum use is successful for two main reasons: 1) auctions are more efficient than either comparative hearings or lotteries, and 2) auctions raise revenue. The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions 1 By efficient the FCC and the GAO seem to mean that auctions take into account market price where lotteries and comparative hearings do not, and that they are less of an administrative burden.4 As Rose demonstrates, however, the FCC spectrum auctions are fraught with price distortions both as a result of FCC mispricing and tacit manipulation in the bidding process. The notion that an administrative process that is clearly flawed is justified because it is speedy cannot be supported. The second rationale advanced by GAO and the FCC that the competitive bidding process contributes additional dollars into the U.S. Treasury is true, but that does not mean that the additional dollars are commensurate with the value of the spectrum. In a highly influential 1995 column, former Nixon aide and New York Times columnist William Safire expressed alarm over the federal budget deficit, and the solution he saw to this looming crisis was spectrum auctions. Based only on current uses, which are primitive, the market value of the VHF, UHF, cellular, broadband and narrowband spectrum ranges around $120 billion. But in the near future, your television set will combine with your computers and telephone and fax machine into a single unit you can hang on the wall or fold up in your pocket. That’s soon – possibly in the next Presidential term. I’ve seen not-for-attribution estimates that the market value of the digitized spectrum in that onrushing era will be – hold your breath – a half-trillion dollars, give or take a hundred billion.5 While the federal budget projected a surplus at the end of the Clinton Administration, the budget deficit has ballooned again. Assuming Safire wrote this with some basis, FCC spectrum auctions have not come close to the half-a-trillion dollars desperately needed now to close the budget deficit again. Revenue from spectrum auctions so far is in the $45 billion range and the Congressional Budget Office and the Bush White House guesstimate that after a slight dip in 2008 auctions will raise perhaps another $6-10 billion through 2015. At a time when the revenue is badly needed, we have not come close to receiving a fair market value for the spectrum licenses auctioned thus far. According to Rose, there is evidence that considerably less revenue has been raised than might otherwise have been the case. Large-scale mispricing by the FCC has resulted in failure to raise expected revenue or allocate licenses in over 36 percent of auctions. Further reduction of potential revenue results from the ability of bidders to adopt manipulative strategies of tacit collusion or preemptive bidding. Both of these strategies result in the auctioning of licenses at significantly lower prices to the manipulating bidders than to those who do not employ these strategies. Collusion does not generally result in a fair auction where the winning bids are commensurate with the value of auctioned item. Furthermore, significant amounts of revenue have been generated by a handful of auctions, an artifact both of genuinely different valuations for different bandwidths and of the way in which FCC rules determine qualifying bidders. 2 Center for American Progress Imagine Christie’s selling a million-dollar Picasso to a wealthy collector for one hundred dollars but claiming success because it was an easy and quick sale and the money is in the bank. As Dr. Rose notes, if a private auction house did as poor a job as the FCC in returning value to the sellers, that auction house would be out of business. A Chance for Entrepreneurs? The legislator perhaps most responsible for pushing through the 1996 Telecommunications Act was former Senator Larry Pressler. Pressler argued: “We have a responsibility to stand up to special interests and to auction off those portions of the spectrum that will provide new uses and will provide billions of dollars for the taxpayers of this country.” 6 While we cannot be absolutely certain who Senator Pressler was referring to by the term “special interests,” a substantial portion of the public record suggests that many members of Congress were very concerned to avoid the concentration of licenses and to provide opportunities to small entrepreneurs. # of Auctions in Which There Is a Statistically Significant Difference in the Average Number of Licenses Assigned to the Top Five Bidders and the Bottom Five Bidders * There are thirty-five auctions in which the difference is significant at alpha < .001, one auction in which the difference is significant at alpha < .01, and one auction in which the difference is signifi- cant at alpha < .05. In 19 auctions there was too small a sample. Even the rosy GAO report notes that “some industry stakeholders we interviewed stated that auctions limit participation to large companies,” yet GAO has not conducted an analysis of this issue. Dr. Rose’s careful analysis of the auctions reveals a significant skew of auction outcomes have favored a small subset of bidders – and those bidders are not small entrepreneurs. There is a tendency for some bidders to prevail in multiple auctions, and there has been a measurable increase in the market power of large media corporations. Furthermore, the FCC procedure of simultaneous, multi-stage auctions over multiple items is subject to manipulation by tacit collusion among bidders, avoidance of head-to-head competition by the best capitalized and most successful bidders, and preemptive bidding strategies. This results in the wealthy bidders winning valuable rights to spectrum at significantly lower prices than other bidders. The bar graph above shows the number of auctions in which the difference in average number of licenses obtained by the top five bidders and the bottom five bidders is statistically significant:7 The Failure of FCC Spectrum Auctions 3 A Chance for Women and Minorities? Finally, while Congress specifically mandated that the FCC use spectrum auctions to increase economic opportunity for small businesses, women and minorities, there is no evidence that these auctions have significantly increased opportunity for any of these “designated entities.” An independent study funded by the FCC indicates that “minority and women applicants were less likely to win at least one license than were non-minority applicants [and] Minorities and women qualified for auctions at significantly lower rates than non-minorities.”8 Measured across all wireless auctions through 1999, minority and women applicants were less likely to win at least one license than were non-minority applicants. Indeed, studies commissioned by the FCC itself point to the failure of small businesses, women and minorities to qualify and to successfully participate in spectrum auctions. The fact that barriers continue to exist limiting the participation of women and minorities has not been resolved by the FCC. Indeed, as a problem in need of solution, this goal has simply been forgotten. Concerned that “sham buyers” were taking unfair advantage of the designated entity (DE) rules, the Commission changed its auction rules in April 2006 by “eliminating the payoff for this ‘flipping’ of licenses,” according to Commissioner Michael Copps.9 Still, the new rules do not prohibit DEs from having “material relationships” with larger corporations nor did they even address the problem of limited minority ownership or deployment of advanced services to minority communities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Evolution of U.S. Spectrum Values Over Time
    The Evolution of U.S. Spectrum Values Over Time Michelle Connolly, Department of Economics, Duke University Nelson Sa, Department of Economics, Brandeis University Azeem Zaman, Department of Statistics, Harvard University Chris Roark, Department of Economics, University of Chicago Akshaya Trivedi, Trinity College, Duke University, Class of 2018 Working Paper Series 2018 | 121 Evolution of spectrum values 1 The Evolution of U.S. Spectrum Values Over Time Michelle Connolly1, Nelson Sá2, Azeem Zaman3, Chris Roark4, and Akshaya Trivedi5 February 13, 2018 Abstract We consider 1997 to 2015 data from FCC spectrum auctions related to cellular services to attempt to identify intrinsic spectrum values. Relative to previous literature, we control for license specific auction rules, and introduce measures to separate out technological progress that effectively reduces spectrum scarcity from progress that increases demand. Results confirm that technological changes have led to increases in the relative value of higher frequencies. Surprisingly, 47 percent of these licenses have been won by “small” bidders, representing 27 percent of the real value of these licenses. The use of bidding credits further appears to consistently reduce auction competition. Keywords: Spectrum, Spectrum Scarcity, Auctions, FCC, Auction Rules, Mobile Applications, Spectral Efficiency, Broadband Speeds, Closed Auctions, Small Bidders, “The Google Effect” JEL Codes: L5, O3, K2 1 Corresponding author: Michelle Connolly, [email protected], 213 Social Sciences, Box 90097, Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708. 2 Department of Economics, Brandeis University. 3 Department of Statistics, Harvard University. 4 Department of Economics, University of Chicago. 5 Trinity College, Duke University Class of 2018. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NSF grant 1314468.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Milgrom Wins the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award for His Contributions to Auction Theory and Industrial Organization
    Economics, Finance and Management is the seventh category to be decided Paul Milgrom wins the BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award for his contributions to auction theory and industrial organization The jury singled out Milgrom’s work on auction design, which has been taken up with great success by governments and corporations He has also contributed novel insights in industrial organization, with applications in pricing and advertising Madrid, February 19, 2013.- The BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the Economics, Finance and Management category goes in this fifth edition to U.S. mathematician Paul Milgrom “for his seminal contributions to an unusually wide range of fields of economics including auctions, market design, contracts and incentives, industrial economics, economics of organizations, finance, and game theory,” in the words of the prize jury. This breadth of vision encompasses a business focus that has led him to apply his theories in advisory work with governments and corporations. Milgrom (Detroit, 1942), a professor of economics at Stanford University, was nominated for the award by Zvika Neeman, Head of The Eitan Berglas School of Economics at Tel Aviv University. “His work on auction theory is probably his best known,” the citation continues. “He has explored issues of design, bidding and outcomes for auctions with different rules. He designed auctions for multiple complementary items, with an eye towards practical applications such as frequency spectrum auctions.” Milgrom made the leap from games theory to the realities of the market in the mid 1990s. He was dong consultancy work for Pacific Bell in California to plan its participation in an auction called by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact-Checking Glen Weyl's and Stefano Feltri's
    The Market Design Community and the Broadcast Incentive Auction: Fact-Checking Glen Weyl’s and Stefano Feltri’s False Claims By Paul Milgrom* June 3, 2020 TV Station Interference Constraints in the US and Canada In a recent Twitter rant and a pair of subsequent articles in Promarket, Glen Weyl1 and Stefano Feltri2 invent a conspiratorial narrative according to which the academic market design community is secretive and corrupt, my own actions benefitted my former business associates and the hedge funds they advised in the 2017 broadcast incentive auction, and the result was that far too little TV spectrum was reassigned for broadband at far too little value for taxpayers. The facts bear out none of these allegations. In fact, there were: • No secrets: all of Auctionomics’ communications are on the public record, • No benefits for hedge funds: the funds vigorously opposed Auctionomics’ proposals, which reduced their auction profits, • No spectrum shortfalls: the number of TV channels reassigned was unaffected by the hedge funds’ bidding, and • No taxpayer losses: the money value created for the public by the broadband spectrum auction was more than one hundred times larger than the alleged revenue shortfall. * Paul Milgrom, the co-founder and Chairman of Auctionomics, is the Shirley and Leonard Ely Professor of Economics at Stanford University. According to his 2020 Distinguished Fellow citation from the American Economic Association, Milgrom “is the world’s leading auction designer, having helped design many of the auctions for radio spectrum conducted around the world in the last thirty years.” 1 “It Is Such a Small World: The Market-Design Academic Community Evolved in a Business Network.” Stefano Feltri, Promarket, May 28, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Putting Auction Theory to Work
    Putting Auction Theory to Work Paul Milgrom With a Foreword by Evan Kwerel © 2003 “In Paul Milgrom's hands, auction theory has become the great culmination of game theory and economics of information. Here elegant mathematics meets practical applications and yields deep insights into the general theory of markets. Milgrom's book will be the definitive reference in auction theory for decades to come.” —Roger Myerson, W.C.Norby Professor of Economics, University of Chicago “Market design is one of the most exciting developments in contemporary economics and game theory, and who can resist a master class from one of the giants of the field?” —Alvin Roth, George Gund Professor of Economics and Business, Harvard University “Paul Milgrom has had an enormous influence on the most important recent application of auction theory for the same reason you will want to read this book – clarity of thought and expression.” —Evan Kwerel, Federal Communications Commission, from the Foreword For Robert Wilson Foreword to Putting Auction Theory to Work Paul Milgrom has had an enormous influence on the most important recent application of auction theory for the same reason you will want to read this book – clarity of thought and expression. In August 1993, President Clinton signed legislation granting the Federal Communications Commission the authority to auction spectrum licenses and requiring it to begin the first auction within a year. With no prior auction experience and a tight deadline, the normal bureaucratic behavior would have been to adopt a “tried and true” auction design. But in 1993 there was no tried and true method appropriate for the circumstances – multiple licenses with potentially highly interdependent values.
    [Show full text]
  • Collusion and Equilibrium Selection in Auctions∗
    Collusion and equilibrium selection in auctions∗ By Anthony M. Kwasnica† and Katerina Sherstyuk‡ Abstract We study bidder collusion and test the power of payoff dominance as an equi- librium selection principle in experimental multi-object ascending auctions. In these institutions low-price collusive equilibria exist along with competitive payoff-inferior equilibria. Achieving payoff-superior collusive outcomes requires complex strategies that, depending on the environment, may involve signaling, market splitting, and bid rotation. We provide the first systematic evidence of successful bidder collusion in such complex environments without communication. The results demonstrate that in repeated settings bidders are often able to coordinate on payoff superior outcomes, with the choice of collusive strategies varying systematically with the environment. Key words: multi-object auctions; experiments; multiple equilibria; coordination; tacit collusion 1 Introduction Auctions for timber, automobiles, oil drilling rights, and spectrum bandwidth are just a few examples of markets where multiple heterogeneous lots are offered for sale simultane- ously. In multi-object ascending auctions, the applied issue of collusion and the theoretical issue of equilibrium selection are closely linked. In these auctions, bidders can profit by splitting the markets. By acting as local monopsonists for a disjoint subset of the objects, the bidders lower the price they must pay. As opposed to the sealed bid auction, the ascending auction format provides bidders with the
    [Show full text]
  • Auction Design and Tacit Collusion in FCC Spectrum Auctions
    Auction Design and Tacit Collusion in FCC Spectrum Auctions Patrick Bajari and Jungwon Yeo October 19, 2008 Abstract The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used auctions to award spectrum since 1994. During this time period, the FCC has experimented with a variety of auctions rules including click box bidding and anonymous bidding. These rule changes make the actions of bidders less visible during the auction and also limit the set of bids which can be submitted by a bidder during a particular round. Economic theory suggests that tacit collusion may be more di¢ cult as a result. We examine this proposition using data from 4 auctions: the PCS C Block, Auction 35, the Advanced Wireless Service auction and the 700 Mhz auction. We examine the frequency of jump bids, retaliatory bids and straightforward bids across these auctions. While this simple descriptive exercise has a number of limitations, the data suggests that these rule changes did limit …rms ability to tacitly collude. Bajari: Univeristy of Minnesota and NBER, Yeo: Univeristy of Minnesota. Bajari would like to thank the National Science Foundation for generous research support. 1 1 Introduction Starting in 1994, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used auctions to award spectrum. Prior to this time, the FCC used administrative hearings or lotteries to award licenses. Economic theory suggests that auctions should have a number of advantages over these earlier mechanisms. First, in many auction models, game theory predicts that the bidder which values the item most highly will win the auction. Therefore, the auction results in an e¢ cient allocation.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on the Above-Noted Consultation
    Rogers Communications Inc. 333 Bloor Street East Toronto, Ontario M4W 1G9 Tel. (416) 935-7211 Fax (416) 935-7719 [email protected] Dawn Hunt Vice-President Regulatory July 15, 2009 Director, Spectrum Management Operations Radiocommunications and Broadcasting Regulatory Branch Industry Canada 300 Slater Street Ottawa ON K1A 0C8 Sent via email: [email protected] Re: Canada Gazette, Part I, April 11, 2009, Gazette Notice No. DGRB-001-09, Consultation on the Revisions to the Framework for Spectrum Auctions in Canada Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) appreciates the opportunity to provide reply comments on the above-noted consultation. The documents are being sent in Adobe Acrobat Professional Version 8.0. Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP. Yours very truly, Dawn Hunt Attach. WIRELESS DIGITAL CABLE INTERNET HOME PHONE VIDEO PUBLISHING BROADCASTING Reply Comments of Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) Canada Gazette Notice No. DGRB-001-09 Consultation on Revisions to the Framework for Spectrum Auctions in Canada Published in the Canada Gazette, Part I April 11, 2009 July 15, 2009 Rogers Communications Inc DGRB-001-09 July 15, 2009 Executive Summary Rogers Communications Inc. (“Rogers) provides the following reply to the submissions filed by other parties in response to Industry Canada’s Consultation on Revisions to the Framework for Spectrum Auctions in Canada (the “Consultation Paper”). In the Consultation Paper, the Department invited comments about spectrum management in Canada, including the use of auction types other than simultaneous multiple-round ascending (SMRA), the renewal of long-term licences, the research and development (R&D) condition of licence, and Tier areas for spectrum licensing.
    [Show full text]
  • TOWARD a DIGITAL FUTURES FOUNDATION a Concept Note
    April 2021 HOW TO CLOSE AMERICA'S DIGITAL EQUITY GAPS: TOWARD A DIGITAL FUTURES FOUNDATION A Concept Note Michael A. Calabrese & Lester M. Salamon A joint product of the Open Technology Institute at New America and the PtP Project PHILANTHROPICATION thru PRIVATIZATION PROJECT Calabrese and Salamon • How to Close America’s Digital Equity Gaps: Toward a Digital Futures Foundation • Page i Suggested Citation: Michael Calabrese and Lester M. Salamon, “How to Close America’s Digital Equity Gaps: Toward a Digital Futures Foundation,” A Concept Note. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies and Washington, DC: New America, April 2021). Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the authors and may not necessarily be shared by New America, Johns Hopkins University, East-West Management Institute, or any other institutions with which the authors are associated, or that have supported their work. © Lester M. Salamon and Michael A. Calabrese, 2021 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Cover image adapted from rawpixel.com/Freepik Calabrese and Salamon • How to Close America’s Digital Equity Gaps: Toward a Digital Futures Foundation • Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PART I 4 What is spectrum…and who owns it? PART II What is driving massive escalations 6 in the value of spectrum globally? PART III U.S. precedents for using proceeds from 8 the privatization of government assets PART IV The case for a private Digital Futures Foundation 11 financed by spectrum auction proceeds CONCLUSION 22 References 23 About the authors 25 bit.ly/PtP-Spectrum-Concept-Note Calabrese and Salamon • How to Close America’s Digital Equity Gaps: Toward a Digital Futures Foundation • Page 1 INTRODUCTION America’s digital ecosystem suffers from a serious set of imbalances.
    [Show full text]
  • Spectrum Auctions from the Perspective of Matching
    Spectrum Auctions from the Perspective of Matching Paul Milgrom and Andrew Vogt May 5, 2021 1 Introduction In July 1994, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) conducted the first economist-designed auction for radio spectrum licenses. In the years since, governments worldwide have come to rely on auction mecha- nisms to allocate { and reallocate { rights to use electromagnetic frequencies. Over the same period, novel uses for spectrum have dramatically increased both the demand for licenses and auction prices, drawing continued attention to the nuances of spectrum markets and driving the development of spectrum auction design. In August 2017, the FCC completed the Broadcast Incentive Auction, a two-sided repurposing of an endogenously-determined quantity of spectrum that ranks among the most complex feats of economic engineering ever under- taken. The next generations of mobile telecommunications are poised to extend this growth, and to demand further innovation in the markets and algorithms that are used to assign spectrum licenses. What does all of this have to do with matching theory? Spectrum auctions differ from canonical matching problems in meaningful ways. Market designers often emphasize that a key element of matching markets is the presence of preferences on both sides of the market. In a marriage, for example, it is not enough that you choose your spouse; your spouse must also choose you. This two-sided choice structure applies also to matches between students and schools and between firms and workers, but not to matches between telecommunications companies and radio spectrum licenses. It is a different matching element that is often critically important in ra- dio spectrum auctions.
    [Show full text]
  • NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES COMPLEMENTARITIES and COLLUSION in an FCC SPECTRUM AUCTION Patrick Bajari Jeremy T. Fox Working Paper
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES COMPLEMENTARITIES AND COLLUSION IN AN FCC SPECTRUM AUCTION Patrick Bajari Jeremy T. Fox Working Paper 11671 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11671 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 September 2005 Bajari thanks the National Science Foundation, grants SES-0112106 and SES-0122747 for financial support. Fox would like to thank the NET Institute for financial support. Thanks to helpful comments from Lawrence Ausubel, Timothy Conley, Nicholas Economides, Philippe Fevrier, Ali Hortacsu, Paul Milgrom, Robert Porter, Gregory Rosston and Andrew Sweeting. Thanks to Todd Schuble for help with GIS software, to Peter Cramton for sharing his data on license characteristics, and to Chad Syverson for sharing data on airline travel. Excellent research assistance has been provided by Luis Andres, Stephanie Houghton, Dionysios Kaltis, Ali Manning, Denis Nekipelov and Wai-Ping Chim. Our email addresses are [email protected] and [email protected]. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. ©2005 by Patrick Bajari and Jeremy T. Fox. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Complementarities and Collusion in an FCC Spectrum Auction Patrick Bajari and Jeremy T. Fox NBER Working Paper No. 11671 September 2005 JEL No. L0, L5, C1 ABSTRACT We empirically study bidding in the C Block of the US mobile phone spectrum auctions. Spectrum auctions are conducted using a simultaneous ascending auction design that allows bidders to assemble packages of licenses with geographic complementarities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting Or with Incomplete Information
    The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information Drew Fudenberg; Eric Maskin Econometrica, Vol. 54, No. 3. (May, 1986), pp. 533-554. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9682%28198605%2954%3A3%3C533%3ATFTIRG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U Econometrica is currently published by The Econometric Society. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/econosoc.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Tue Jul 24 13:17:33 2007 Econornetrica, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Award of Available Spectrum: 2500-2690 Mhz, 2010-2025 Mhz and 2290-2300 Mhz
    Award of available spectrum: 2500-2690 MHz, 2010-2025 MHz and 2290-2300 MHz Summary We briefly summarise the main points in our response to this consultation: Vodafone supports Ofcom’s decision to authorise use of the spectrum bands 2500- 2690 MHz, 2010-2025 MHz and 2290-2300 MHz. However, we believe that before this occurs Ofcom should resolve the uncertainty about 2G liberalisation and see no reason why this should frustrate Ofcom’s timetable. Failure to address this issue risks distorting the outcome of the auction. Vodafone has been a long-standing supporter of Ofcom’s generic licence conditions (technology neutrality, tradability, conditions of tenure and absence of roll-out conditions). Vodafone urges Ofcom to consider putting the licence terms for existing mobile licences (at 900 MHz, 1800 MHz and 2.1 GHz) on an equal footing with the successful bidders in the expansion band auction. Vodafone appreciates Ofcom’s desire to design an efficient (and as simple as possible) auction. However, we believe that the proposed auction contains some restrictions on the flexibility of bidding behaviour and pricing which seem to be unnecessary: • The auction design pre-supposes that that the relative preference of bidders between different frequencies within the 2.6GHz band is small relative to the overall price. However, if some bidders have very different valuations for alternative parts of the spectrum (and we believe that this may be the case because interference conditions will differ across the band and may be severe in particular parts of the band) then the auction scheme proposed may mean that spectrum is not allocated to the bidders that value it the most.
    [Show full text]